Shonna and Benjamin: Your arguments are spot on, and I usually wouldn't feel the need to comment. However, I think you may be overlooking a reality of how the labor market has fundamentally changed over the past 3-4 decades.
You describe the old world where regular employment with benefits was the norm for most workers -- which we haven't seen in over a generation. As you know, starting in the 1980s and 1990s, we've had a steady growth in employment categories that have eroded "regular" employment: temps, contract workers/independent contracting, gig workers, etc. In addition, the aggressive outsourcing and offshoring of many jobs means that many more people who do not show up as working on the books for a company where they live, for all intents and purposes work for that company, yet with an "arms length" relationship at best, and a subclass status at worst.
So, I am not saying you are wrong. Rather, that the damage you call out has been inflicted like a thousand paper cuts over many decades. To the point that those still in "regular" employment know the deal -- that they, too, could end up like their peers who don't have the privilege of a job with benefits and the supposed dedication of the company to their wellbeing. They know that they are just as "on their own" as the people working without benefits, in gig/temp work, and/or outsourced.
Should you argue for investing (back) into employee populations that have been starved for resources, support, etc.? Of course. I just wouldn't kid ourselves about just how far companies have taken us down the current dark path. Getting back to a more sane equilibrium will take a really long time. On the positive side, the organizations that do so should find they gain a real competitive advantage.
I'm glad that you commented, Alec! You're right, the erosion started long ago. A distinction that we would draw is between declared and undeclared terms. Contract and gig arrangements, whatever their inequities, state what they are. A contractor knows what the terms of the engagement are and can price it accordingly. What we are describing happens inside "regular" employment, where the title, the benefits, the development conversation, and the language of commitment all signal a permanence that the arrangement often no longer supports. In that narrow sense the arms-length version is more honest than the one still in place for people who are nominally secure. When I went out on my own I was struck by how often people referred to my choice as courageous given that it seemed like the one that offered the most information.
Your point sharpens the customer data too. Many customer-facing roles are outsourced, contracted, or part-time. So the population with the most accurate read on what drives customer dissatisfaction is often the one with the weakest formal claim on the organization.
I agree with your point on the timeline too. A thousand paper cuts do not close at once. Stating terms honestly can happen fast. Earning back the investment that follows takes years.
Shonna and Benjamin: Your arguments are spot on, and I usually wouldn't feel the need to comment. However, I think you may be overlooking a reality of how the labor market has fundamentally changed over the past 3-4 decades.
You describe the old world where regular employment with benefits was the norm for most workers -- which we haven't seen in over a generation. As you know, starting in the 1980s and 1990s, we've had a steady growth in employment categories that have eroded "regular" employment: temps, contract workers/independent contracting, gig workers, etc. In addition, the aggressive outsourcing and offshoring of many jobs means that many more people who do not show up as working on the books for a company where they live, for all intents and purposes work for that company, yet with an "arms length" relationship at best, and a subclass status at worst.
So, I am not saying you are wrong. Rather, that the damage you call out has been inflicted like a thousand paper cuts over many decades. To the point that those still in "regular" employment know the deal -- that they, too, could end up like their peers who don't have the privilege of a job with benefits and the supposed dedication of the company to their wellbeing. They know that they are just as "on their own" as the people working without benefits, in gig/temp work, and/or outsourced.
Should you argue for investing (back) into employee populations that have been starved for resources, support, etc.? Of course. I just wouldn't kid ourselves about just how far companies have taken us down the current dark path. Getting back to a more sane equilibrium will take a really long time. On the positive side, the organizations that do so should find they gain a real competitive advantage.
I'm glad that you commented, Alec! You're right, the erosion started long ago. A distinction that we would draw is between declared and undeclared terms. Contract and gig arrangements, whatever their inequities, state what they are. A contractor knows what the terms of the engagement are and can price it accordingly. What we are describing happens inside "regular" employment, where the title, the benefits, the development conversation, and the language of commitment all signal a permanence that the arrangement often no longer supports. In that narrow sense the arms-length version is more honest than the one still in place for people who are nominally secure. When I went out on my own I was struck by how often people referred to my choice as courageous given that it seemed like the one that offered the most information.
Your point sharpens the customer data too. Many customer-facing roles are outsourced, contracted, or part-time. So the population with the most accurate read on what drives customer dissatisfaction is often the one with the weakest formal claim on the organization.
I agree with your point on the timeline too. A thousand paper cuts do not close at once. Stating terms honestly can happen fast. Earning back the investment that follows takes years.